Global Cooling in 2009 (375 Sources)

[Megalodon]

I look forward to what they will say 5-10 years from now as further evidence is compiled. What will they say then?

Hard to predict... stupidity comes in so many shades...

 

[mhaze]

...Today, they deny all global warming, human or nonhuman caused because they have latched on to the sort of date presented in this thread. Odd how they have done a 180 on whether global warming is ocurring or not. I have not re-engaged them to ask them about this discrepency but I am sure they will have excuses. I look forward to what they will say 5-10 years from now as further evidence is compiled. What will they say then?

Actually, what will you say now?

To being confronted with your own bias, misunderstanding, as evident in your statement, of the facts of the matter of the OP. It applies the method of Mann et al, to the subject of cooling.

I take that as something of a joke, and have noted that Warmers, being deadly serious people intent on Saving the World, tend not to get the joke.

Thus the reframing of the argument per you, and others, and the trend of the conversation in said reframed, misdirected orientation, which is useful in that it does make those so engaged feel better, by providing a mutual reinforcing affirmation of prejudices, but unfortunately, has no relation to scientific or logical thinking.

Cheers!

 

[Burning Beard]

Finland had the warmest year in it's recorded history...as well as the warmest decade...

Warmest decade on record here in New Zealand too.

 

[CapelDodger]

Actually, what will you say now?

To being confronted with your own bias, misunderstanding, as evident in your statement, of the facts of the matter of the OP.

There are no facts in the OP. There's a quote which claims there was a blizzard in Copenhagen, which there wasn't. It has a graph, but of what we're not told. And it has a picture of temperatures in some parts of the world during winter.

It applies the method of Mann et al, to the subject of cooling.

Is that meant to be a joke?

I take that as something of a joke, and have noted that Warmers, being deadly serious people intent on Saving the World, tend not to get the joke.

Oh, it is meant to be a joke. It's not a very good one.

Thus the reframing of the argument per you, and others, and the trend of the conversation in said reframed, misdirected orientation, which is useful in that it does make those so engaged feel better, by providing a mutual reinforcing affirmation of prejudices, but unfortunately, has no relation to scientific or logical thinking.

That's seriously rich from you. There was no global cooling in 2009. That's a fact.

The "frame" you and PopTech like is one in which the US is the whole world. It isn't (that's another fact).

 

[CapelDodger]

I look forward to what they will say 5-10 years from now as further evidence is compiled. What will they say then?

It is pretty difficult to predict. I'm sure some will still be harping on about the world cooling. Some will still be lying about hacked emails. Many will probably be claiming that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than it has become. And of course they'll be slandering scientists while claiming that Al Gore is behind it all and has made another billion dollars (or five, or ten) out of it. They'll blame continued warming on the solar cycle, which is on the up-swing if things go normally.

But they might have something entirely new. Who saw the Cosmic Ray ploy coming, after all?

 

[shadron]

Actually, it would be such a pleasure to be proven wrong about man-made global warming, for at least two reasons: it will advance the science immeasurably - there will be new theories, lots of employment, and lots of cool science going on. The second is that we will not have that sword of Damocles hanging over our heads.

On the other hand, if the antis are found to be wrong, it will be the worst of all worlds. They will not come down from their trees happily, as they have a dogmatic position to uphold, and only a messy world to come down to. It will not be pleasant for any economy in the world (though some will do better than others, obviously).

And the "I told you so" crap will be forever, regardless of how it goes. And the hard feelings.

 

[Trakar]

So, skeptsci, you allege a Conspiracy?

It was rather subtle, no?

 

[BenBurch]

It was rather subtle, no?

Like a;

 

[Trakar]

The right wing of US politics has taken the view that the scientists have got this one wrong. This means that any support for or claim based on the science contradicts their political dogma and they consider it an attack on that dogma. Since anything that attacks their political dogma must be political itself they label anything based on the published science as political.

So it is a conspiracy!?!

 

[DogB]

So it is a conspiracy!?!

Problematically it also works the other way around. If I question the science (any aspect of the science) I (ipso facto) become a right wing loon*. The whole denier industry has become a giant right wing conspiracy.

Neither argument has much truth in fact that I can see.


*I make no claim on my degree of lunacy – but if I am a loon, I’m a fairly staunchly left wing one.

 

[yairhol]

So, skeptsci, you allege a Conspiracy?

Although not wanting to speak on behalf of Skeptsci, I think he has already addressed this in several other threads.
Highlighted is what I think is relevant to this discussion taken from another thread regarding Randi's stance on the AGW matter:

There is definitely a lesson to be learned from this pathetic episode with James Randi , there's a lot to be learned from history too in similar occasions. Even serious skeptic people and apparently strong like Randi cave to what must have been a slew of all kinds of social pressures, threats of stopping collaborations/ financing and what not, that this man must have experienced in the last two days. For him it is very important to be accepted within academic circles. He knew what he was talking about when he wrote in the first (independent opinion one) article (Dec. 15): "An unfortunate fact is that scientists are just as human as the rest of us, in that they are strongly influenced by the need to be accepted, to kowtow to peer opinion, and to "belong" in the scientific community." In the word "us" he was obviously referring to himself. I guess I was not the only one to think of him as leadership material - a bit more resistant and independent than the average person.

If you disregard that Skeptsci is referring to Randi and replace "Randi" with "scientists" in general, I would think this is what Skeptsci is talking about. No conspiracy, just human nature.

 

[Trakar]

Problematically it also works the other way around. If I question the science (any aspect of the science) I (ipso facto) become a right wing loon*. The whole denier industry has become a giant right wing conspiracy.

Neither argument has much truth in fact that I can see.


*I make no claim on my degree of lunacy – but if I am a loon, I’m a fairly staunchly left wing one.

So no conspiracy, just an issue of two concensus opinions, one based upon the mainstream scientific evidence and understandings and the other based upon a conservative political agenda?

 

[DogB]

So no conspiracy, just an issue of two concensus opinions, one based upon the mainstream scientific evidence and understandings and the other based upon a conservative political agenda?

Boom tish!

He's here all night folks!

 

[AOK Tiger]

Fsol

How about this?

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/...his/#more-2108

This looks NOTHING like the predictive graphs I remember from the late 1990’s to 2000.

Looks like Tamino is retro graphing. The predictions made back then all went up ALARMINGLY.

Its WHY I was sold on AGW for years.

It was only when Global temps showed a much slower upward trend that DIDN’T follow CO2 emissions that I became sceptical.

I think ill just sit back and look at figs up to about 2015 before truly deciding.

 

[fsol]

Fsol



This looks NOTHING like the predictive graphs I remember from the late 1990’s to 2000.

Looks like Tamino is retro graphing. The predictions made back then all went up ALARMINGLY.

Its WHY I was sold on AGW for years.

It was only when Global temps showed a much slower upward trend that DIDN’T follow CO2 emissions that I became sceptical.

I think ill just sit back and look at figs up to about 2015 before truly deciding.

You can of course link to those graphs that you remember. It would after all make your argument a bit stronger.

 

[BenBurch]

...

This looks NOTHING like the predictive graphs I remember from the late 1990’s to 2000.

...

Cite?

 

[Lurker]

Actually, what will you say now?

About what? Has something changed that I need to address?

To being confronted with your own bias, misunderstanding, as evident in your statement, of the facts of the matter of the OP. It applies the method of Mann et al, to the subject of cooling.

Mhaze, you are too intelligent to confuse datum points with data.

I take that as something of a joke, and have noted that Warmers, being deadly serious people intent on Saving the World, tend not to get the joke.

Thus the reframing of the argument per you, and others, and the trend of the conversation in said reframed, misdirected orientation, which is useful in that it does make those so engaged feel better, by providing a mutual reinforcing affirmation of prejudices, but unfortunately, has no relation to scientific or logical thinking.

I'm not sure what you are nattering on about.

 

[LoudHoward]

I know little about the science of the issue, I feel the public gets the very tip of the (shrinking?) iceberg, which is only natural, because it's so complex. I'm sure I'll be corrected very quickly if I'm miles off base.

As for graphs showing that since 1998 the global average temp has remained steady, well, thats all well and good (as are graphs that show a rise) - but we need to know what it means. Technically, it seems a trend line from 1998 to now would be reasonably flat, but (I'm ignoring the anomoly of 1998 factor) surely that only means something if the experts climate models predict just that by naturalistic means only.

If the observed temperature data of the last decade matched the models of a climate devoid of man made warming factors (GHGs) and coolers (Pollution, land use) then I guess I'd take very serious notice. But from the IPCC report, it shows pretty clearly that the observed temperature readings fall into the ranges calculated by climate models that take into consideration natural and man made factors. The observed data has left the ranges calculated using natural climate forces only. Linky.

As a simple example, I fail to see how a graph that shows a flatline since '98 proves anything, if the bulk of the evidence shows that without us the trend would've been down (assuming here that the climate would attempt to return to where it would've been had we not diverged in the 70s) because of lower solar activity or La Nina or whatever. Global cooling by less than what should be happening is still global warming is one way to say it maybe

 

[Thunder]

The Dutch canals froze for the first time...in 12 years!!!

wow....12 whole years!!!!!

 

[BenBurch]

LoudHoward, except the data does not show that. Almost all of the last ten years have been above the trend line.